Lee and his agent are looking for 10 to 12 mil a year..way too much for a guy that cant make a shot outside 10 feet consistently, and plays poor defense. I love Lee, but Jordan Hill can put up those numbers in a couple years in that offense.

That Portland trade could definately work...they've ALMOST traded for Lee multiple times over the past 2 years, they'd be more than happy to get him now, and NY would get a 7-8 million trade exception which they could pair with 1 of their big expiring contracts(Hughes, Mobley) at the deadline to make a big splash, maybe Tmac!!!
And from Utah's standpoint Wilson Chandler would be a great fit there he gives them a legit guy who can score from the perimeter and slash, and it would allow Kirilenko to be their 6th man and give them great versatility off the bench!!!

You guys made some valid points about David Lee but you left out something, REBOUNDING! This is something I repeatedly tried to point out on this website, premier rebounders are very rare and worth their weight in gold. Why do you think Utah matched the offer for Paul Milsap?

Remember this, everyone focuses on scoring but it's rebounding and defense that wins games. There's nothing more psychologically devastating then stopping a team on defense and then giving up an offensive rebound.

Most NBA forwards are already running towards the other end of the court after the shot goes up, but you're not going anywhere without the ball. David Lee is someone you can count on to fight for rebounds so other guys can score. It sounds simplistic but it's true.

As for 2010, that's all hypothetical. The Knicks better think about rebuilding a franchise right now that was shredded by Isiah Thomas. That means keeping the building blocks of a solid foundation and one of those blocks is a guy who has a double double every game. Guys like that don't come along very often. Premier free agents won't come to NY if they don't believe there's enough talent to win a championship.

NY adds Boozer (who i like but not that much)
Portland adds a big PF, a pick and a PG
Utah gets Cash, exp deal and another defender
Sacramento adds a pick, Nate (who they love) and a exp player who can contribute...

Rbt. Rebounders are extremely valuable at any level. I don't know how many teams I have seen lose games because they don't have a guy on the court that can snatch a rebound. Trust me. As great as the Bulls teams of the 90s were, Dennis Rodman was the real reason that team had the 72 win season. More rebounds mean more possessions on offense and fewer 2nd chance points when on defense. If you have an elite rebounder he doesn't have to be able to shoot. If they miss there is a good chance that they get it back. Lee and Milsapp have excellent value because you don't have to run plays for them. You don't have to worry about them bogging down your offense and that's if you decide to include them in it. The same goes for Dwight Howard, it just so happens that he has this insane athleticism that enables him to do what Lee and Milsapp do at a higher level. I see him take shots all the time that he knows he is going to miss because as soon as he shoots it, he is already repositioning himself to go back and get the ball in a better position.

I also agree that NY needs to concentrate on building a team. I'm not sure all of these teams are making smart moves by only having 1 or two guys under contract. Why sign with a team if you don't have any teammates? Make your team the best you can while still saving up money.

No offense, but the 4 way deal proposed is horrible. NY would be taking on Udrih who is not very good and has a large salary. Boozer probably wants a long-term extension. He's good, but injury prone and probably best suited as a third option if it's a team that is contending. Sac would have two past first point guards and Harrington will complain if he doesn't start. Utah probably won't get much for Boozer, but telling me that all they can get is Travis Outlaw seems crazy. I guess Portland would be the winner, but they still need a pg because Duhon and Blake are about the same and this would probably mean that Oden would be glued to the pine all year because there won't be any minutes for him unless he can beat out Pryzbilla.

No offense, but the 4 way deal proposed is horrible. NY would be taking on Udrih who is not very good and has a large salary. Boozer probably wants a long-term extension. Sac would have two past first point guards and Harrington will complain if he doesn't start. Utah probably won't get much for Boozer, but telling me that all they can get is Travis Outlaw seems crazy. I guess Portland would be the winner, but they still need a pg because Duhon and Blake are about the same and this would probably mean that Oden would be glued to the pine all year because there won't be any minutes for him unless he can beat out Pryzbilla.

NY would keep Udrih as a backup or maybe a starter(gotta take the good&bad) and Miami is not giving Boozer a extension either once they add him...

Sacramento would use Nate off the bench.

Utah adds cash, a expiring contract and a defender...they have 2 2010 1st rounders. (they might have one if they make the playoffs)

Udrih > Duhon.... that is one reason the Knicks would do that trade. Also Boozer is a big name who will possibly attract another big name free agent in 2010.

The Kings are only giving up Kenny Thomas (expiring contract) & Udrih. Meanwhile they get Nate Robinson who they want to sign anyways. Also Al Harrington can help them this year plus his contract expires after the season anyways. 2nd round pick is a bonus. That is obviously a good trade for the Kings. Udrih isn't needed because Evans is better.

Utah gettting Outlaw is a great deal for them...he can help out. Also all Utah cares about is cap space. This trade saves them a ton of money. It is a no brainer trade for the Jazz.

doubledribbler, I'm glad we agree on the importance of rebounding. I was also pleased to see your reference to Dwight Howard which I thought was very well done. I had to laugh when I saw people on this website say he wasn't a super star. I think they somehow underestimate the importance of rebounding. I bet every coach in the league would love to have D. Howard, P. Milsap, or David Lee.

And we also agree on the importance of building a solid foundation for the franchise today or else future free agents won't have any interest in coming to NY.

As for the trade, giving up D. Lee would be a big mistake. As I pointed out above, Utah won't let Milsap get away because they realize how important he is to their success. It's too bad that rebounding gets only lip service while so many people focus on scoring. There's an old basketball cliche, you can't score without the ball.

I dont think so. I think most of these "hustle" players are expecting 5-10 mil a year because they can score somewhat but are beast on the board. Ben Wallace got a boatload of money and he did not live up to it. I think every year, there is a least a couple of players who we could find in the Draft, FA and D-League who could come in and be a solid hustle player for a NBA team

I'm trying to point out that although you think rebounding is important, you probably think a big time scorer is worth that kind of money, but not a big time rebounder. If that's true, then we disagree because I think a premiere rebounder is worth every bit as much as a scorer. One thing is for sure, they're harder to find.

I don't think there are many players in the league worth 10 million dollars, but that's determined by the free market. Utah isn't paying P. Milsap all of that money because of his offense, he was worth that huge investment because Jerry Sloan knows they can't win without his rebounding.

It clearly sounds as if you believe a franchise player is one who scores a ton of points. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It also sounds as if you don't believe master rebounders deserve as much as franchise players [big time scorers]. You're still a very young guy, maybe in a few years you'll change your mind. Just watch your favorite team lose a couple of big games because they failed to grab key rebounds and you might feel differently.

As for Gortat, obviously his stats don't justify that kind of money. In fact, it's hard to imagine anyone paying him that kind of money. But he was offered huge money by Dallas because they believe he can become one of the top ten centers in the league. And there's no reason to deny that he can potentially be that good. So for Dallas, he was worth the investment.

From Orlando's perspective, they saw what happened when D. Howard was suspended and/or in foul trouble. Without Gortat, they would have been dead in the water. Is that type of insurance worth 34 million? I don't know, but obviously Orlando doesn't want to take that risk, so they're going to pay him millions to sit on the bench and watch D. Howard play.

But if D. Howard is injured, Gortat might prove to be a great insurance policy. I also suspect that during the regular season, you will see D. Howard given longer rests by Van Gundy.

Bill Russell is the first name that comes to mind and Dwight Howard is another one since I don't consider him a big time scorer. I can't remember all of them, but here are some other names that jump out:

None of the teams those guys played on could have possible succeeded without the guys I mentioned on that list who dominated the boards. In addition, since premiere rebounders come along only occasionally, you can't replace them. Therefore, if you can't win without them and you can't replace them, they're every bit as important as what you would describe as a franchise player.

I'm guess your definition of a franchise player is a guy who's a big time scorer. My definition widens that scope to include premiere rebounders.

I agree with your Franchise Player attributes, but they're not the only ones. I would expand your definition to include the following:

A franchise player is a guy who

1. Has a unique skill or set of skills.
2. He is irreplaceable.
3. He is critical to the success of a team.

Now the one guy upon whom we can agree is probably Charles Oakley, that may have been a little bit of a stretch.

But the Pistons would have never won those championships without Rodman. He had a unique set of skills, he was irreplaceable, and he was clearly critical to the success of his team. Therefore, he was just as valuable as the team's highest scorer.

Even though he wasn't much of a scorer, the Bullets would have never made it to the finals without Wes Unseld. The same was true of Walt Bellamy, Dave Cowens, Bill Russell, and most of the guys on my list. The reason you think including them is "somewhat crazy" is very simple, you don't value rebounding as much as I do. That's why we have different definitions of what a "Franchise Player" is.

Anyway, that's where this discussion started, and we're right back to that point, so let's call it a day.

By the way, big time scorers can be replaced more easily than big time rebounders. Why? The NBA is full of great offensive players, but there are very few who fit into the category of being a premiere rebounder.

Every year we find a big rebounder coming out the Draft. Rebounders are not that hard to find in the NBA anymore....Not every team in the NBA has a solid Scorer but most (almost all teams) have solid rebounders.

KnicksBoy34 proclaimed, "It's tougher to find a big scorer over a big rebounder...sorry."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I went back to the 2008 NBA season when there were 27 players who scored 20 ppg or more.
There were only 10 guys who grabbed at least 10 rpg of which only 5 had more than 11 rpg.

In 2008, that was almost a 3 to 1 ratio of scorers to rebounders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, there were only 6 players who averaged at least 10 rpg.
In 2009, there were 20 players who averaged at least 20 ppg.